Christian Religion For the Christian Religion giveth Rules to all sorts of Christian Societies These are not the usual ways of defining nor give me any true notice of your sence 6. And you make it not intelligible whether by the Rules of the Christian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond or only as a Rule to some humane Rule But though the application look this way yet your words speak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuse that are united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion If this will serve those are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order c. But is not this against those Churches that take not the Bible but Canons or other humane Laws for the bound of their Church-Vnion or their Rule If it be uniting for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which maketh a Church let us then try which Societies are so united and let that be the matter of our Dispute § 24. Serm. p. 13. And it is a great mistake to make the Notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that an adequate Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the Name of Churches to particular Congregations whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up But if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other Bond that uniteth them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church Ans 1. Did you write this as a Confutation of any body If so you should have told them who are your Adversaries I never met with one to my remembrance that saith the Church is no longer a Church than they are congregate but Mr. Cheney who writeth against my Plea for Peace And so the two first who now write against me write against one another and I must please them both When you so far differ among your selves you should bear with them that less differ from you 2. What mean you by the Notion of a Church which all Men know is an equivocal word Do you mean that a Church hath but one Notion I pray you tell us whether the Notion be the same as it is used Matth. 16. 18. 18. 17. 1 Corinth 11. 18 22. Acts 19. 32 39 40. 1 Crrinth 14. 34. Psalm 26. 5. Ephes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Acts 5. 11. Acts 20. 28. Rev. 2. 12 18. Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. 10. Acts 8. 1 3. Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. 5. 23. Doth any Man believe that it is in all these Texts taken in the same Notion or sence I am sure I need not ask this of you as to the sence of prophane Authors who use the word for any sort of Concilium coetus concio congregatio convivia as in Lucian Demosthenes Aristotle Thucidides c. 3. If you will pardon me for telling Men in Print so often that a Church is constituted not only for Communion in Worship but also in Doctrine and holy Living I will not ask you why you dissembled this nor why you would intimate the contrary to your Readers Repetition is not the least fault of my Writings and all will not prevent the mis-intimations even of such worthy Men as you Ad nauseam usque I have repeated that the Office of the Ministery standeth in a subordination to the three parts of Christ's Office Prophetical or Teaching Priestly or Worshipping Kingly or Ruling and that a particular Church is associated for the use and benefit of all three conjunctly Were you not willing to take notice of this or not willing that others should take notice of it 4. How many Writings of ours have told the World that we appropriate not the Notion of a Church to a particular Congregation Do not my Books which you cite copiously express the contrary Do we not over and over tell Men that the word Church must be considered as equivocal generical and specifical Do we take the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed for a particular Congregation Worthy Sir this is unworthy dealing whether it be by ignorance negligence rashness or wilfulness We distinguish between Churches of God's Institution and of Man's Invention And of the first sort what Independent is there that holdeth not an Vniversal Church at least besides particular Congregations And of Man's making who can number the sorts that are and may be made 5. Did you ever know Man save such Conformists as he that answered my Plea whether Greek Papist Episcopal Presbyterian Independent or Anabaptist who denieth a Church Bond that uniteth them when the Congregation is dismiss'd All confess that the Union of the pars regens and pars subdita for Church-ends doth make it a Church And who doth not distinguish between the Constitution and Administration the Status and the Exercitium 6. How then could you say If this be true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up What shew is there of such a consequence What if we held that the Church were so called barely in relation to Publick Worship doth it follow that this Relation ceaseth as soon as the several Acts of Worship cease Their mutual consent and the union of the VVorshippers Priest and People associated for that use may continue when the Act of VVorship is intermitted May it not continue a School when the Boys go home or play May it not be a Parliament when the House is risen tho it be only for the work of assembled Men that they are related and denominated 7. But Sir do you not confess even in your Iroenicon where you maintain that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine command 1. That God hath commanded that there be Assemblies ordinarily used for his VVorship 2dly And that Pastors are to be the Guides and chief Managers of this VVorship 3dly And that they should be also their Teachers 4thly And that they govern them by their Keys And if all this be true then such Assemblies are of Divine Institution not such as are associated only for VVorship but for Doctrine Worship and holy Living under the Teaching and Conduct of their Pastors If you deny that such Churches as we call Particular are of Divine Institution we have often proved it though few Christians deny it or need any proof And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite that I must suppose you know it though you seem to dissemble it that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be not the whole Church meeting at one time and place but personal presential Communion in Doctrine VVorship and Holy Conversation as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only Your Parish is associated for such
Heresie or Crime to question his word or suppose him fallible 6. A proud meer Grammarian who can confute Aristotle and the School-men with a scorn and taketh it for a disgrace to have any more Logick than simple terms or taketh Rhetorick for the purest fruit of Reason 7. A Nominal who contracteth all his Syllogisms into simple terms of art and can confute any Adversary by calling him a Fool or a Rogue or a Heretick or a Schismatick 8. One that standeth so high that he thinks men below him to be little things like walking Crows 9. A one-eyed man that can see nothing but on his own side 10. A galled person that smarteth if the wind blow on him And a melancholly man that thinketh that all that you think and say is against him and would kill him 11. I cannot dispute against Canons and Organs that speak so loud that none can be heard but themselves Nor against ringing Bells that have loud tongues and no ears and go on on on and take no heed to what is answered 12. Nor against such as Isa 48. 4. Iron is too stiff for me to bow and I can make no impression upon brass 13. Nor can I deal with such as are described Hos 7. 4 6 7. Such an Oven hath too wide a mouth and too hot a breath for me to contend with 14. Nor such as Psal 59. 7. and 55. 21. that speak swords or dispute with hands and not with tongues and fetch their arguments from the Prison or the Lyons and speak not to the ear but to the flesh and bones Nor such as 2 Sam. 23. 6. Isa 27. 4. Mic. 7. 4. Thorns and Bryers speak too feelingly If I must dispute with stings I had rather it were with Bees that will recompence me than with Wasps or Hornets 15. I am too weak for men over valiant that can venture upon any thing and easily prove that the Snow is black 16. And my voice is too low for the dead and deaf and sleepy and drunken that when I have spoken know not what I said 17. I am loath to enter the Lists with those women that never want time or heat or words and seldom foul ones Nam si cum stercore certo vinco seu vincor semper ego maculor 18. Nor am I able to deal with a Crowd or Multitude where they follow the Leader and cry Away with him when few know whom or what they are against 19. Nor yet with Lads that are too quick for me and value Mercury above Gold that have quick Trade but little stock and think age and experience to be the Characters of dull declining Wits 20. And I am too weak to dispute a man out of Love with his Life or his Pleasure Wealth or Honour All Church-History tells me how rarely any ever scrupled the Lawfulness of being made Pope or Patriarch or hath been argued out of a Bishoprick or Dominion I am not strong enough to answer an hundred pound a year much less a thousand though Grace and Conscience is 21. But though all this be not the Case of the Reverend Doctor yet one advantage though uncertain he hath He is liketo over-live me and so may have the last word And that is a certain Victory with the sequacious multitude But yet Truth will triumph and fraud will vanish and secret things shall be brought to light and that which is crookned by the Judgment of men shall be set strait by the infallible final judgment For the Reverend Doctor Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls Reverend Sir AS you have told the Magistrates and the World what you think of me as guilty of sinful separation I have reason to hope that you will not deny me your help for my own conviction For it concerneth no man so nearly to know my sin as my self and being so near my day of Judgment I were a most inexcusable wretch if I were unwilling to know it You knew their capacity it 's like for whom you Preacht and wrote but I that best know my own finding it impossible to understand you and your accusation without further help presume to intreat your speedy Answer to these Questions which are the stop of my Conviction I. Q. I entreat you to tell me more plainly which is the constitutive Regent part of a National Church Whether the King or a Sacerdotal Head For that you know that a Church as well as a Kingdom is essentiated by a pars regens and pars subdita I long ago found in your Irenicon I have opened the state of the Question in my first Plea Page 251 252 c. Of which I crave your Solution For to hear of One Head and not know who it is is no satisfaction to me II. Q. I intreat you to tell me wore plainly what the One Rule meant in your Text was which was then extant and all that had attained to be true Christians were then and are now to agree in and walk by For I perceive you truly judge that it was somewhat then known to them and yet in your application one would think you meant some late humane Laws Was it a Divine Rule or a Humane If Humane how to know it III. Q. I beseech you tell me plainly what is the definition or formal reason of that sinful separation which you mention as mine For I cannot perceive it by your Book unless you take preaching without the Magistrates Leave and Worshiping in a manner different from that appointed by Law and forbidden to be it But I suppose you take not all Disobedience to be Separation nor all different Modes of Worship I would fain know what you mean IV. Q. I intreat you tell me plainly what you would have the many score thousands do on the Lords days who cannot hear in the Parish Churches For the matter of fact is past dispute that in your Parish of St. Andrews Sepulchres Giles Cripplegate Giles in the Fields Martins Clements and many others there are in some 10000 in some 20000 in some 30000 in some the Parishoners say 60000 Inhabitants more than can come into the Church and hear the Ministers Voice which seldom can be heard by more than 3000 or 4000. How would you have all these score thousands spend the Lords day V. Q. Are you not conscious that the true pastoral Office is not performed in your own Parish to the third part of the people according to their need and Pauls example Act. 20. by reason of the number of them Prudent peaceable men of your Parish tell me that not one of five of their neighbours ever use to go to any Church And out of the Church never hear a word from the Pastor unless at the Baptizing of a Child but live like Heathens without any publick Worship of God And the worst men that most need help least desire it and therefore easiliest take the excuse that at the Parish Church there is no room and if they go to others they
Worship to all save a few thousands Is Authority vain unless all the rest turn like to Atheists No good Christian should obey the Popes Interdicts of whole Kingdoms though he had as much Authority as the King A power to damn souls is a frightful word 2. Either the supposition that it is unjust is true or false If false it will not justifie their Preaching If true either his Preaching is necessary or unnecessary If it be necessary we must obey God and disobey man as Grosthead saith by an obedient disobedience If it be unnecessary though the Magistrate sin I must forbear there and go to some place where I may preach without doing more hurt than good So that Controversieâ—ieth â—ieth but in this Whether the Preaching of the 2000 silenced Ministers was unnecessary and tended to do more hurt than good And this is all that Mr. Rathband or any sober Nonconformist meant And this is plain truth though the best of your Hearers and Readers or your self contradict it § 15. And whereas you say This I am certain is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times your Assertion is so rash and false in matters of notorious Fact that it weakneth my reverence of your Judgment change his dwelling And in London Lodgers may change frequently If I know those called Puritans better than you I must profess that I believe of the two it is more the Preacher and his Preaching which maketh the difference with them than the Liturgie For my part I seldom hear any but very good well studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London where I have been But most of them are more sitted to well bred Schollars or judicious hearers than to such as need more Practical Subjects and a more plain familiar easie mode And it is not your Reasoning that will bring all Appetites to the same Food nor make the same Books serve every form I have always found that such conformable Preachers as were Mr. Bolton Mr. Fenner Mr. Whately Bishop Vsher c. Were flockt after by those called Puritans as much as the Non-conformists But when they find all together 1. That the worship and the preaching is more suitable to their good 2. And that their Souls have need of much other Pastoral help than publick 3. And doubt of the calling of obtruded men no wonder if they prefer the other § 10. But you lay the stress on the Prohibition of the Law which the greatness or smallness of the Parish doth not make more or less Lawful Ans God hath commanded all Christians ordinarily to Learn and Worship him under the Conduct of his Institution all Christians grant this No man hath Power to forbid this All Law that forbiddeth it is of no Obligation In a Parish where 10000 20000 40000 cannot come within the Church to hear if they have no other place to go to they must forbear all publick Learning and Worship So that the English of your Words is that if the Law forbid the most of the People all Publick Learning and worship of God it is there as unlawful for any to Congregate against that Law as where there is no such need But 1. I again tell you Councils Doctors and the Universal Church thought otherwise and abhor'd this Doctrine 2. Why will you not give us one word of proof but your naked Authority to prove such Authority in the Magistrate and to satifie us what Rulers have it and how far it reacheth Hath the King enabled Justices to depose him or cast down his Honour or Prerogative Hath God given Magistrates Authority to damn as many Souls as they will by keeping them from the means of knowledge Faith and Holiness and to forbid his Subjects to Worship God Did Robert Grosthead of Lincoln take this to be the greatest Sin save Antichrists and do you take it for an Act Authoriz'd Is it unlawful to preach when forbidden or worship God when forbidden at Japon Indostan China Turkie France c. or only in England and where § 11. Yet do you conclude I wonder a person of your sagacity should think to satisfie your self or others by such slight evasions as these which scarce any of my Auditors or Readers how mean so ever their Capacities were but could discern the weakness of them Answ 1. O pity then the frailty of human understanding I get nothing by it if I err but my great labour and the hazard of my Salvation by Sin It must needs be then against my will and is none of my size to be endured How few Congregations are so happy as yours if all your Auditors are so much wiser but 1. Be the thousands of your Parish as wise that hear you not 2. How come some that I thought the wisest that I know of your Auditors to say as I say and lament your Case Reader you see here that it must be somewhat better than the confidence of Teachers that must guide and secure the peoples Faith This Reverend Man you see is most confident of the strength of his Reasons and the slightness of mine And I am so far past doubt on the other side as that I think he overthroweth all Religion and seteth up Man in open Rebellion against God He may as well wonder that I take any thing to be of Divine command If all Publick Worship is sinful when forbidden all Private may be so too Daniel may go to the Lyons The Martyrs Fathers Councils the Universal Church are all foolisher than the meanest of his Auditors It 's strange that he can be sure Gods Word is true and yet be so sure that Mens Laws are above it and may suspend it when yet Mens Laws have no more strength than Gods Laws give them 1. I believe that the spirit of God hath said Forsake not the assembling of your selves together know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you and esteem them very highly in Love for their work sake 1 Thess 5. 12. 13. That have spoken to you the word of God that watch for your Souls Heb. 13. 17 24. How shall they hear without a Preacher c. Rom. 10. 2. I believe that where the Gospel is hid it is hid to them that are lost And without knowledge the Heart is not good and without Faith there is no Salvation and that it is Life Eternal to know God in Christ 3. Therefore they that forbid Men to hear and worship God Publickly forbid what God commandeth and what is ordinarily needful to Salvation 4. I believe that God is Almighty the highest Universal King and we are all his Subjects and the Scripture is his Law 5. I believe that there is no Power but from him and that he hath given none against him or his Laws nor above him and that Man is not God and that we must obey God rather than Man when they Contradict 6. I believe that we must Love Fear and Serve God
that by the same Rule is meant the Tradition and Custom of the Vniversal Church 10. And some that it is the Canons of the Bishops in General Councils and under them in National or Provincial Councils 11. And some tell us that the Rule of Christian concord is Obedience to the Bishops of all the World or Universal Church who are a College Governing not only divisim per partes in their several Precincts but unitedly as One Regent College ordinarily per literas formas and by General Councils when they sit 12. And some tell us that it is the Law or Will of the Civil Christian Magistrate which is this Rule As to these four last Rules we must put in our Exceptions As to the 9 th the Traditions and Customs then in use were Apostolical Institutions and so are coincident with some of the former But other Traditions and Customs we take not for this Rule And as to the tenth we give Councils though wrongfully called General their due honour as we do to inferiour Councils and every particular Pastor in his place but take not this for the Rule here mentioned And as to the 11th we know of no such Government in being And as to the 12th it was not then existent and therefore could not be that meant in the Text But we take our selves bound to obey Magistrates as we have elsewhere at large explained and professed In short either you think it is a Divine or a Humane Rule or Law which is here meant or both If a Divine we shall not differ from you of any thing unless it be of the meaning of it If a Humane either it is an act of true Power received from God or not If not you will grant us that it obligeth us not as this Rule in question If yea then we agree that we are to obey it So that all that will be useful to our Conviction will be 1. That you prove the Persons authorized to their Office and of our Magistrates there is no doubt 2. And that they have authority to make all the Canons and Laws which you call the Rule And without this your labour is all lost to us § 10. But which of all these it is that you take for the Rule meant in your Text we must conjecture 1. You well say p. 11. It was such a Rule which they very well knew which they had given them before Therefore it was none that was not then in being but to be made by Bishops afterward And p. 14. you seem to include the Canon made Acts 15. whatever the sense of this Text is we willingly also stand to that and to the Holy Ghosts decision that nothing be imposed but necessary things And p. 15. I find you say that the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing Separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his directions And this is all that I can find of your determination what is that Rule And if Peace be the Rule we all agree with you in declaiming against the violation of it But is there no more in your Application § 11. I remember it is said in the Life of Joh. Bugenhagius Pomeranus the Pastor of the Church in Wittenberge and the Presbyter that ordained the Bishops and Presbyters of Denmark and many other places how much John Frederick the Elector of Saxony was pleased to hear him open the Reasons why Magistrates have power to make Laws but not Pastors armatum 〈◊〉 potestatem politicam authoritate condendi leges non pugnantes cum Decalogo de his traditam se verissimum praeceptum necesse est obedire propter conscientiâ—n sed pastoribus expresse prohiberi condere proprias leges eum dicatur Neâ—o 〈◊〉 arguat in cibo in potu nec posse hanc libertatem ullius creaturae authoritate tolli But I had rather stretch my Obedience to the utmost consistent with Conscience and Obedience to God than speak for any needless Liberty § 12. It is certain that by the same Rule is not meant 1. Any Rule that tied Christians to subscribe or declare that there is nothing in our three Books Liturgy Ordination and Articles contrary to the Word of Godâ— For none of them were then extant nor are they 200 years old 2. Nor any Rule that tied them to any one humane Liturgy which all the Churches iâ— the Nation must agree in For there was none such 3. Nor was it any Rulâ— that imposed on them any dubious unnecessary Opinions Covenants or Practices nor in a word our Conformity or any like it This is easily proved 1. Because the Rule which they were all to wall by was somewhat then existent 2. It was a Divine Rule 3. It was thâ— which all Christians were to have concord in But experience telleth us that all Christians that is that consent to the Essentials of Christianity â—â—â—ver had nor can have their Concord in any of the fore-mentioned Conformity as I have proved in my Book of Concord § 13. We will go therefore no further than your Text for the Terms 〈◊〉 our Agreement and for our Defence against your Accusation Whatâ—â— you will prove to us by any such evidence as should convince a Man of reason 〈◊〉 impartiality to have been THE RVLE which the Apostle did here mean 〈◊〉 bid all that are Christians walk by we earnestly desire to agree thereto Anâ— we will joyn with you against any that refuse it It will be a way more coâ—gruous to your Function and cheaper to your Consciences to condescend 〈◊〉 these Terms and prove to us what this same Rule was than to tell the Magistrates that it is no sin not to endure us § 14. Pag. 16 17 18 19. you come to tell us what Separation it is noâ— which you speak of viz. not of the Separation or distinct Communion of 〈◊〉 Churches from each other c. Answ You know it 's like your self what 〈◊〉 mean by these words if you would have us know it I must crave yoâ— Answer to these Questions Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and distinct Communion the same thing 〈◊〉 divers Qu. 2. What distinction of Communion is it that you mean When there are 〈◊〉 many things which may distinguish 1. Communion in distinct places you take 〈◊〉 for Separation 2. Nor Commnion under distinct Presbyters or Bishops 3. Therefore I suppose neither under distinct Princes or Aristocracies in Cities as such 4. Nor under distinct Laws meerly as such of the same Prince 5. Nor distinct in allowed or indifferent accidents Why any of these should be called Separation I know not unless as the word doth signifie but Diversity or Distance Q. 3. Do you take Separation here in the same sence as before and after or Equivocally If Equivocally why did you not tell us what you here meant besides the difference of Subjects If univocally then Q. 4. Is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from
one Church when it is upon unwarrantable cause or reasons If one Church unjustly renounce Communion with another whole Church as no true Church or as Heretical I think that it is done by a whole Church against a whole Church makes it worse But perhaps you mean that for two National Churches to have two Kings is not unlawful No doubt of that But to what purpose is it Or is it that two National Churches may have different Accidents of Worship or Discipline And so may two Diocesan or Parish-Churches in our Nation if the King please at least § 15. You add Which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to govern and reform themselves Ans Have not all Diocesan Churches power to govern and reform themselves Government is of various species Only the King or summa Potestas Civilis hath Power to govern and reform by his Species of Government But every Bishop may govern and reform his Church as a Bishop as every Master may his Family as a Master and every Man himself as a Man It 's a strange Man Family or Church that hath not power to govern and reform it self though not Regal Power Though Kings have Power they have not God's Power and all Power that is Humane is not Regal § 16. Serm. By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their Right of Government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common Ties and Rules of Order and Government Ans 1. And had not those as good right that were not under the Roman Empire as Abasia c. 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exercise their great diversity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worship without right Had not they a right to govern and reform themselves variously as they did 3. Christian Societies are of divers species Do you mean Christian Civil Societies Kingdoms free Cities c. or Churches Or do you take a Christian Kingdom and a Christian Church for the same as the Erastians do If so I suppose half the Conformists will be against you as well as I. At least you must confess that if de nomine a Christian Kingdom quasi tale may be called a Church it is equivocally and that there is a sort of Christian Churches which are of another Constitution Far were the Christian Bishops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that a Church in the common sence was not constituted of another sort of Regent part that had the Power of the Keyes Two species of Governours make two species of the Societies if they are not subordinate but prime constitutive Parts But the Prince and the Pastor are two species well opened among many by Bishop Bilson of Subjection And verily if you Conformists be divided among your selves about the very Constitutive Rector of a Christian Church you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you 4. And what be the common Tyes and Rules of Order which you mean Are these notifying Terms for a Definition 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents 2. There are Rules made by Contract such as Grotius thinks Canons are and Rules made by Governours which are binding Commands or Laws 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governours to be enforced by the Sword and Rules made only by Ecclesiastical Pastors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys Do you mean all these Or which of them 1. All Christian Churches are tied by the common Divine Rule and is not consent to that enough to make a Church 2. Churches of various Nations may be under one Humane Rule of Agreement or Contract 3. The same Princes may give divers Rules about Accidents to the Churches of one Kingdom and also the same Rule for some Accidents to divers Churches under them who differ in other great things And doth agreement in those Accidents do more to make them Oâ— Church than their difference in Integrals to make them many 4. Princes may do as the Roman Emperours long did leave the Bishops in Councils to make their own Rules by consent and make no common Imperial Rule for them Are they ever the less One Church 5. The Roman Empire and Councils both left the several Bishops to make Rules for Liturgies and other Accidents for their several Churches Were they therefore the less one National Church So that I am no more acquainted by your Words what you mean by a whole Church than if you had said nothing There is a whole Diocesâ—â— Church and a whole Parish Church as well as a whole National Church And what the Power is and what the Rule of Order must be whether the Laws of Princes or Prelates and whether about Essential or Integrals or Accidents and what Accidents whether all or many or few and which that must make a Church to be One whole Church you never tell us An Infidel Prince or a Heretick Prince may give the same Rule of Order to his Christian Subjects in a whole Kingdom Is he therefore the constitutive Church-Head Or will you say as your Mr. Rich. Hooker doth That if he be the Head of a Christian Church it is necessary that he be a Christian To tell us of Common Ties and Rules of Order and never tell us what those Ties and Rules are may serve your Ends but not my Edification § 17. But I remember your Irenicum learnedly maintaineth that God hath instituted no one Form of Church-Government as necessary And if so then not a National Church-Form And is it not a whole Church if it be without a Form which not God but Man is the Author of Then God made or instituted no such thing as a whole Church Then it is a humane Creature Then why may not Man make yet more Forms and multiply and make and unmake as he seeth cause and several Countries have several Forms And forma dat nomen esse And if God made not any whole Church we should be acquainted who they be that were not a Church that had Power to make the first Church-Form and who hath the Power ever since and how it is proved and how it cometh to be any great matter to separate from a Church-Form which God never made and whether humane Church-Forms be not essential and constitutive Causes of the Churches and whether every commanded Oath Subscription Declaration Office or Ceremony be an essential part of this Church-Form And there be as many Church-Forms and Species as there be Orders Liturgies and Ceremonies And all these Differences in the same Kingdom constitute so many Schisms and Separations § 18. Do you take all the Christians in the Turkish Empire to be one National Church or not If not then one Head
or Humane Law is not necessary to the being or Government of a Church nor is it necessary that it be National And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themselves though they be not a National Church Why did Paul write to Corinth as Clemens also did and to the Galatians c. and John to Ephesus and the other six Rev. 2 3. to reform themselves if they had not Power to do it But if all the Christians under the Turk be one National Church then it is either because they have one Civil Head or one Ecclesiastical Head Not the latter for they have none such though the Bishops of Constantinople have some Primacy by their old Canons and Customs Not the former for an Infidel cannot be an essential part of a Christian Church as a constitutive Head is § 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Constantine were true Churches of Christ's Institution and they had power to govern and reform themselves and yet they had no humane Constitutive Head Regal or Sacerdotal though they had a Civil Heathen Governour which was an extrinsick accidental Head It is so contrary to all Sence and Religion that either a Man as a Man or a Family or a Church as such should have no power to govern and reform it self that I must needs judg that while you speak confusedly you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power which yet is totâ specie distinct from that which is properly Ecclesiastical § 20. Serm. p. 17. And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Answ 1. And is the Controversy de nomine Whether they might be called the Lydian Church when we expected a satisfactory explication de re No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called I have told you of divers Sences in which we are called a Church National first Plea pag. 251 c. Either a Christian Kingdom or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King as associated by agreement may be called a National Church 2. What if they be united in one Kingdom of a Heathen Mahometan or Arrian King and governed by his Regal Authority under the same Rules which he sets them Is this it that you mean in your Description A King as such is not an Ecclesiastick Person and therefore is not an essential part of a Church unless as it is equivocally so called And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean or the Clergies Canons or God's Laws The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws and also are under one Patriarch and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastick Authority and Laws of another Species If you confound these two Species or tell us not which you mean in your Definition it tendeth not to Edification 3. And what if they be under divers Kings as the Bulgarians and Greeks were and yet ruled by one Ecclesiastick Authority and Law why may not they also be called One Church as the Moscovites are now called part of the Greek Church 4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire as the African and other Countries were But what is all this de nomine to the Controversy All grant that the Civil Power must be obeyed in their place and the Church-power in theirs 5. But here you grant that they are several Churches before their Union in one Kingdom And I suppose they were Churches 1. of another species than the National described by you 2. and were of Divine Institution 3. and continue so after their Union in one Kingdom 4. and have power to govern and reform themselves still though not Regal power § 21. Serm. Just as several Families united make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent power but it would make strange confusion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Answ And are they not several Families still and have they not still a distinct Family-power to govern and reform themselves tho not a Regal Power Doth making a City or Kingdom dissolve Families You cannot mean it What mean you then by reducing these Kingdoms back to Families when they are Families still Had you said that dissolving Kingdoms or Cities and reducing them to be only Families is confusion it 's undeniable But still as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power so particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Institution gave them And this is that we desire § 22. Serm. Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship Ans 1. All Christians are under the same Divine Laws and Rules 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Christians but their Civil Laws for the common Peace And some make various Laws for various sorts of Christians under them § 23. Serm. For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Ans 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a Church is 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species There must be more The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms and so is a Christian Kingdom as such and so is a Provincial Church and a Diocesan Church and a particular Parochial Church yet all these are not of the same species for they have different terminos in specie 3. This is a very defective Definition where 1. Men are made the qualified Subject when it should have been Christians 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects 3. They are said to be united in general without telling us what uniting is meant whether only by force command or consent whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture Baptism as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse as to the Visible Church 4. It is said they are united for Order and Government as if these were but the Terminus and so may those by agreement de futuro that yet have no Government whereas the Government is the constitutive Form 5. This Definition leaving out the specifick Form and Terminus maketh an Army a Navy a Ship a company of Christian Merchants or Corporation c. to be a Church For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the
no mention of lawful in your Definitions 4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane Laws and Rules yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean for else 1. I am of the same National Church that you are yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you and such as you I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do at least 3. But then it can be but sincere not perfect Obedience to God's Laws and Rules which must prove one to be of this Church or else no Man is of it And then you must shew us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink or a Ceremony or Liturgick Form or Diocesan order do cut one off from that Church If yea than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it which we fear But supposing that you mean Humane Laws 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church If Humane Laws were necessary ad bene esse the Christians that I have read and converst with think that they are not necessary to the Being of a Church in sensu famosiore why then should they be in the Definition and only they 6. But the difficulty recurreth as to Humane Laws which of them are necessary to the Being of the Church For your Definition distinguished not The King hath great and excellent Laws which we all conform to Doth not our Conformity to these seem to prove us of the National Church though we conform not to your Formalities and Oaths and Ceremonies Imperfect Obedience serveth to continue men Subjects to the King It is not every Drunkeness or Oath or Fornication much less the miss of a Complement or Ceremony that makes a Man a Rebel or an Outlaw Why then should the refusal of a Prelates Subscription or Formality unchurch a sound and honest Christian 7. And if the humane Laws and Rules which you mention what ever you mean by them be subordinate to God's Laws and so be honest good and obligatory why should they cut off those from the Church which Christ's Laws cut not off yea which Christ receiveth and commandeth us to receive Receive him for God receiveth him and receive him as Christ receiveth us notwithstanding our Infirmities were good reasonings in St. Paul's Judgment which I prefer before any Bishops that I know 8. And a Man of less Acquaintance or Wit than you cannot be ignorant what abundance of Differences there are among your selves I have named you no small number in my â—d Plea some of you are hot against that which is called Arminianism and some hot for it some are for Bishops and Presbyters being of one Order and some of divers all are not of the mind of the Bishop of Hereford that wrote Naked Truth some even Bishops think that the damnatory part of Athanasius's Creed is not approved by Conformity others think that it is all to be approved A multitude such differences there are among your selves And why should not this as much unchurch some of you if it be being under the same Laws that maketh you one Church as the forbearing of a Declaration of Assent and Consent or of a Surplice c. 9. Especially tell us whether the Conformist's difference about the Constitutive Regent Part of the Church of England some being for one species and some for another do not plainly make them to be of two distinct Churches of England and further different from each other than we are from any part We justly say the Papists who are for two species of Soveraigns some for the Pope and some â—â—r a general Council are plainly of two Churches for the regent part is essential And I am sure that one part of the most Eminent Disputers for the Church of England and Conformity say that the King is the Extraneous Civil Governour but the Bishops are the Constitutive Essential Internal Governours of the Church as a Church and that if the Bishops command the use of one Translation Version Metre Liturgie and the King another we are to obey the Bishops and not the King And that the efficient cause of a National Church is the Bishops Agreement among themselves to associate into such a Church And others say that it is the King and his Laws that are the efficient of such a Church and are to be obeyed in matter of the Circumstances of Worship c. before the Bishops Can you prove that this difference between the Conformists about the very Constitutive Regent Power is not greater than Mens differences about a Ceremony or Form and doth not more to make them to be of two Churches 10. If all this confused stir be but about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of Divine Command And if you know it not or dissemble it after I have said so much of it in the first Plea and elsewhere I cannot help that viz. if you will talk publickly against what you know or know not when told because you will not know But I have there largly told you what the Power of Princes about Church matters is which if you will not read I will not repeat 11. Your Words Laws and Rules would induce one to think that you joyned the Kings Laws and the Bishop's Canons together in your meaning as the bond of Uâ—ity If so is it two sorts of Governours by the Swoâ—d and by the Word Magistrates and Pastors which you take for the constitutive regent parts of the Church If so then either in Cooâ—dination and Coalâ—tion or in Subordination The first cannot be that the two Species in Coalition should make one Head unless both were in the Kings as Persona Mixta both Lay and Clergie as some affirm him to be like Melchizâ—deck But this both King and Clergie disown Nor can the second be because a subordinate Power is not essential to the whole body politick but only the supreme And the Magistracy Ministry are coordinate Species both depending immediately on God and Subordinate Mutually only Secundum quid Nor is the Legislative Power in England any other than one which is in the King and Parliament conjunct The Bishops Canons are not Laws Ejusdem Speciei till the King and Parliament make them such If this be your Judgment there are I think but few Conformists of your mind 12. I must Conjecture therefore by your words That the Laws and Rules which you define the Church by are the Laws of the King and Parliament and that it is the Civil Christian Sovereign that you take for the Constitutive Head of that National Church which you plead for or else I know not what to Conjecture And if this be your Meaning I add to what is said 1. Erastians have hitherto been distasted by the Bishops and I
doubt they will by this take you for somewhat worse 2. What doth your National Church differ from a Christian Kingdom which we deny not 3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church besides that which is Constituted by the Christian Magistrate as Head 1. All the Christian World as far as I can learn by History no considerable part excepted have been in all Ages and to this Day are of another mind And who then is the great Nonconformist and Separatist You or I if this be your mind 2. The Magistracy and Pastoral Office are of different Species Therefore the Churches Constituted by their Regency are of different Species 3. Constantines words have hitherto been commonly received That He and so Christian Kings was Bishop without the Church and the proper Bishop within that is That he was the Governour of the Church by the Sword as the King is of all Scholars Physitians Families c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys as the King is not a School-Master Physitian or the formal Specifying Governour of School Colledge Family as such Bishop Bilson of Subjection most clearly openeth the difference and I think Christians commonly agree to it between the Office of Governing by the Sword and by the Word even about the Church it self 4. Christ settled immediately the Pastoral Office and did not leave it to Princes to make it And He settled Churches under the Pastors when there were no Christian Princes And when the Emperours became Christians they never took themselves to be the intrinsick Constitutive Rectors of the Churches but Accidental Heads as is aforesaid And all the Councils and their Canons fully shew that the Bishops were still of this mind And our greatest Defenders of the Power of Princes Bilson Andrews Buckâ—ridge Spalatensis c. were of the same mind and ascribe to them no more 5. Else Heathen and Infidel Princes might be Essential to the Church in the Gospel-Notion For they are the Governours of it by the Sword and may possibly by the Counsel of Christians make them as good Laws as many Christian Princes do Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws But I Labour in vain in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species for I suppose you cannot deny it and if you do few others will I suppose it is only the National Form which you take to be Constituted by a Lay-Head But few Christians will deny That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church is of Divine Institution and that Men have not power to destroy that Form or change the Office there Instituted by the Holy Ghost Though the Forms of Assâ—ciated Churches Diocesan Metropolitan Provincial Patriarchal are judged by very many to be of Humane Invention And what Man may make Man on good Reason may unmake or alter But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned I shall Grant you that a National Church is also of Divine Command if you mean but a Christian Kingdom But when one Form is Denominated from the Pastoral Office related to the Flock and the other from the Magistrates Office What hath a Man that can understand the State of the Controversy to do here but to shew what is the Pastoral Office towards the Church and what is the Magistrates For sure they are not the same And yet because that it is the Pastoral Form which the word Church denoteth in the strict and usual Christian Sense Our Sovereignes in England to avoid the Papists Exceptions have forsaken the Title of Head of the Church lest they should seem to claim a Constitutive Headship of a Church strictly taken and use only the Term Governour Even as Christ is said by St. Paul Eph. 1. to be Head over all things To the Church Over and To much differ And I yet see not why on the same Reason that we call a Christian Kingdom or Republick a National Church we may not 〈◊〉 call Loâ—don York c. a City-Church as Headed by the Mayor as the Christian Magistrate and so talk of Provincial Consular and Proconsular Churches Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical Churches and make all the Controversies which Church-Form is best as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is best And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations which I think yet most of them disclaim do this way quite exceed them in Popularity and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches even National including the particulars For I suppose they will not say that Democratical Civil Government is unlawful And whereas Cyprian saith Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia you will say Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is there is the Church But I trow the Bishop of London believeth that there is another sort of London-Church-Form besides my Lord Mayors Relation to them But what abundance of Church-Forms Supream and Subordinate may diversity of Magistracy make § 29. Sermon p. 19. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion i. e. those which are necessary for Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Answ 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to speak of I suppose it is not for want of Charity nor Concern that you intend it not and therefore suppose that somebody else will do it at last I have heard of some above your order that could better spare the Nonconforming Ministers than the People and said plainly that they increased the Impositions because they could do better without us than with us And some have said If this will not cast them out more shall do it I take it for granted that this pretermitted part of your Work is indeed the All that you have to do in the Works of Accusing and Afflicting the Nonconformists and till this be done the rest of your Accusations will confute themselves and I doubt not but it will be attempted and if it be truly and satisfactory I will give you thanks 2. Your Term of Lay-Communion remembreth me that if as you seem you Essentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler and his Laws viz. the King and the Laws made by him for Religious Government the People that you accuse are no Separatists though they Separate from the Diocesanes because they hold this Lay-Communion that is though they are not perfectly Obedient they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour and so Members of the Kingdom which is the National-Church 3. And as to your Lay-Communion here spoken of So far as it is Lawful where you have Preach'd or Written for it once I think I have done it many times I shall be far from Contradicting you in that § 30. Sermon p. 20. I will not say there
hath been a great deal of Art used to confound these two and it is easy to discern to what purpose it is Answ 1. I have not Art enough well to reconcile your Negative and your Parenthesis which intimateth an Affirmation If you will not say such Art was used how can you intimate to what purpose it 's used Can you tell so easily why it was done and not tell that indeed it was done at all But perhaps you can tell though you will not I would fain know why No Man that Reads your Words can well believe that it is through the redundancy of your kindness 2. Forgive this Truth Of all Men that have Written against Nonconformity I remember few that may worse than you speak against CONFOVNDING as I shall further prove 3. If I be one of those that you speak of Confounding is not the greatest fault of your words while it is visible that in my first Plea I distinctly enumerated the Case of the Nonconformity of the Laity and the Clergy And I spake by consent for many of my acquaintance And I am likest to be meant by you because divers others that go farther from you take Lay-conformity to be unlawful and largely give their reasons for it How then did you expect to be believed when our Books are in so many hands 4. None are fitter Judges of Arts than the most exercised Artificers If you are skill'd and exercised in such Arts your self you may the easiler discerne both the Art and purpose And yet we are so neer our selves that I cannot easily believe that you know my Arts or purposes so well as I do my self § 31. Serm. I dare say the People ' s not understanding the difference of these two Cases hath been a great occasion of the present separation Ans No doubt but there is a great difference between the Ministers Case of Conformity and the Peoples which makes some of them think much worse of a Conforming Minister than of a Conforming Lay-man which sheweth that the difference is not wholly unknown to them But I think I have done more to acquaint them with the difference than you or any of your tribe have done § 32. Serm. For in the Judgment of the most impartial men of the Dissenters at this day though they think the Case of the Ministers very hard on the account of Subscriptions and Declarations required of them yet they confess very little is to be said on the behalf of the People from whom none of those things are required Ans 1. This is but such Confusion as constituteth this Sermon We think that nothing of truth can be said for any of the People's errors no more than for the very hard and sinful case of our selves if we should Conform If any go one step too far from you they are unjustifiable therein But we have shewed those that will see that much may be said on the People's behalf for much of their Nonconformity and also for such assembling as you call separation 2. And surely if you had the due sense of your Brethrens Case of your Own Case and of the Kingdoms Case you would perceive how necessary the forbearing of the imposition of those very hard things is to the healing of that which doth offend you and to greater ends than that § 33. Serm. So that the People are condemned in their separation by their own teachers But how they can preach lawfully to a People who commit a fault in hearing them I do not understand Ans 1. The People that are guilty of any sinful separation are reproved by us but not those that separate no further than is their duty In my first Plea I described no less than 30 Cases in which separation is a sin and neer 40 Instances in which some separation is a duty or no sin And of all this you here take no notice and toss the bare confounding name of Separation as if the Sound ought to affright men from all that you are against sure you could never think that we had Brains or Consciences if such dealing should pass for satisfactory with us Can any man tell by this bare Name or any thing in your Book what that Separation is which you condemn The word Heresie with a Papist and the word Separation and Schism with some Conformists seem to be terms of Art But what Art is it Sure it is not the Cartesian nor the Epicurean Philosophy which layeth so much on Atomes and Motion I cannot Imagine what Contexture of Atomes should cause the Sound of the word Separation or Schism to make such a motion as should drive men out of their Religion and Wits I am not so happy as to be an Academical Graduate but I have long ago read Lulliusâ—nd â—nd many of his Commentators and I find no Philosophy more likely to lay much on the Power of words except that which we call Magick or Charming For my part I was born with a disease if it be such that hateth Confusion and Deceit and inclineth me to bring things into light and to discern between things that differ And if you Doctors have learned the Art of Reduceing a Syllogism into a Simple terme or Naâ—e it is quite above my kind of Learning I suppose it is such a Logical contracted Syllogism that you intend But as short writing called Characters though expeditious is hard to be read by others so your contracted Syllogism in the name Separation and Schism will be more useful to you and yours than to strangers that never saw your heart If Vsefulness and Vsedness even by some of the Reverend may afford us a Prognostick I may conjecture that even Lying and other necessary arts are ascending in hope to be placed among the Cardinal virtues and those that scruple it may be numbered with Schismaticks Separatists and Rogues § 34. If I would here again tell you what Separation I take to be lawful and what unlawful and desire you to define that which you accuse me of I may expect that in your Reply you will dissemble it But I will trie you with a few instances of one sort and desire you to tell me which it is that you mean I. Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No sure For then you are one to others and other Parishes such to you II. Is he a Separatist that liveth in your Parish and ordinarily meeteth not in your Temple but another allowed place If so the Bishop of Elâ— is a Separatist in your Parish that keepeth a Meeting in his Chappel when you preach If not so when we had the Kings License at least the place made Us not Separatists III. Is every one a Separatist that differeth from you in Doctrine in publick Preaching If so are you not Separatists one from another when one Preacheth for that wich is called Absolute Election Reprobation Universal Redemption Free-will Falling from justification the morality
that it is lawful for such to use more suitable helps though Men forbid it A Soul is precious God Worketh by Means and according to the suitableness of Means That agreeth not to some which others can make shift with Two or Three words from a Conformest that saith God can Bless the weakest Means to you or the Fault is in your self will not serve instead of needful Helps The King or Bishop have not Authority to Tie a Sick Man to Eat that which he cannot Digest or Hurteth him Every Man is neerliest concerned for his own Soul and most Entrusted with it Parish-Order it self is but a humane alterable Circumstance which I am not bound to observe at the hazard of my Edification and Salvation XXVII What if the Magistrate grant a Toleration of divers Modes of Worship as the French and Dutch Churches are here Tolerated and many in Holland and in many other Countries Are these separating Schismaticks that differ from each other If so it is not because they disobey the Magistrate for he Tolerateth them all If not then meer diversity of Modes of Worship maketh not Schismaticks XXVIII If it be no true Political Church in the strict sense as an Organized Society which hath not true Authorized Pastors and if any Parish have either Vncapable Persons or such as were never Consented to by the Flocks and so have no True Pastor and if the Bishops hold That Parishes are not proper Political Churches but parts of Churches having no Pastors that have the Power of the Keyes or the whole Essence of the Pastoral Office but only Half-Pastors that want an Essential Part of the Power If on any such Account any Parishes are no true Pastoral Churches Qu. Whether to Separate from such a Parish be to Separate from a Church in the sense in question XXIX The mutual Condemnations in the times of the Novations Donatists Nestorians Evtychians Monothelites Phantasiasts Image-Patrons c. tell the World how needful mutual forbearance is to prevent worse Divisions and Confusions And the Papists take themselves to be all of one Church though they differ even in Doctrines of Morality as dangerously as the Jansenists against the Jesuits have shewed and though many Sects and Orders be permitted to Live and Worship God with very great diversity in their several sorts of Monasteries Why then should the little differences of our questioned Assemblies be thought to be so great as maketh us not to be of one Church XXX Some good Christians think That though an undisciplined Church may be Communicated with occasionally yea and constantly while there is a hopeful Tryal of its Reformation yet when there is no hope after Patient Tâ—yal a better Course and Communion should be chosen where it may be had And they think that Multitudes whom they know to be prophane Swearers Cursers Drunkards Fornicators Haters of serious Piety Hobbists Infidels Atheists Sadduces c. are continued in the Church of England And they say they scarce ever heard one Man of all these Excommunicated nor one Man of them all ever brought to Publick Confession and Repentance And they think Lay Chancellours having not rightfully the Power of the Keys there is no ordinary Means of hopeful Reformation and Exercise of Discipline especially the Largeness of the Diocesses making it impossible to be used to One of an Hundred that according to the Law of Christ it should be used on And they think That the Church-Discipline is not only None as to the Right Use and made Impossible but worse than None while it is used most to Excommunicate from Christ's Church the True and Conscionable Members of Christ that dare not Conform and so to lead to their Imprisonment and utter Ruin And they think That no Man hath true Authority to confine them to such an Undisciplined and Illdisciplined Church and forbid them the Use of better where Christ's Discipline may be used Whether these Men be in the Right or in the Wrong if the Matter of Fact be true I should desire rather the Reformation of such a Church than the Reproach or Afflicting of Men as Separatists and Schismaticks that choose another sort of Communion as to their more Ordinary Practise not denying this to be a true Diseased Church And so much in these Thirty Instances about that which I think deserveth not the Reproach of any dangerous Separation I told you Thirty Instances also of Unlawful Separation which I named And now you may judge whether you spake to Edification when you said That the People are Condemned by their own Teachers without telling whom and for what and how far they Condemn them and how far not § 34. And Did you think the Consequence good That because we think it Lawful to Hear you yea and to many a Duty therefore we Condemn them for Hearing any one else that Conformeth not As if they that have Communion with your Diocesan-Church must have Communion with no other So far am I from your Opinion that I take it to be wofully Separating and Schismatical And will never be a Member of a Particular Church which will forbid me Communion with all others that differ from them yea that doth not hold its Communion in Unity with all the True Christian Churches on Earth Though a Schismatical Disputer for Prelacy tells me That though I Communicate with the Church of England I am a Schismatick for Communicating with Nonconformists who saith he are Schismaticks But he that will Communicate with no Church that hath any Guilt of Schism when the Christian VVorld is broken into so many Sects I doubt will be the greatest Schismatick and will Communicate with few on Earth And as Smith Baptized himself not liking any other Baptism this Man may become a Church to himself And indeed the word Condemn them sounds Harsh when it signifieth no more than that we Judge them to be Mistaken and Culpable If I Condemn every Man or every Church which I judge to be Sinners I must Condemn all Mankind I use not so harsh a Phrase of your Self as to say I Condemn You When yet I Judge your Book to be more Schismatical than the Meetings of most that I am acquainted with which you Accuse § 35. But yet your Mistake is Greater than I have hitherto mentioned I know not many if any that use to Hear Me who Separate from You Many of them are Episcopal and for your Liturgy and Ceremonies I think most of them go to the Parish-Churches and few if any that I know do deny it to be Lawful How then can you prove it True that we Condemn them What is it for Is it because they neither Separate from the Conformists or Nonconformists This is it that we Exhort them to It was an ill Slip to put our Condemning them for Commending them But a fair Exposition will make it Lawful § 36. But you say How they can preach lawfully to a people that commit a fault in hearing them I do not
their own only meerly for their singular Opinions And yet it will be hard for you to prove that all the Preachers on Earth must give over Preaching to any such as these What shame Blood and odious Schisines followed this Schismatical Principle while in doubtful Disputations or tolerable differences each party Condemned and Cursed the other I have fully manifested in my Abridgment of Church History VVhile by one Emperour and Council all the Orthodox were Deposed and by another all the Nestorians and by another all the Eutichians and by another all the Monothelites and by another the Corrupticolae and by another the Iconoclasts and so on How few were there un-Cursed and un-Cordemned in the Roman World And this keepeth the Churches in Schism to this day 8. Do not you thus teach the Nonconfâ—rmists to require you with the like and by your own Rule to judg it unlawful for you to Preach They judg indeed that it is lawful to hear you 1. When better 〈◊〉 without greater hurt than benefit 2. To sâ—ew their 〈◊〉 by their Practise viz. that they separate not from you as 〈◊〉 Church nor â—â—ke it for simply unlawful to have 〈…〉 you But they that think Conformity as great a 〈…〉 have told you they fear it would be to them must needs think that it is a fault in those that choose your Assemblies when câ—teris paribus and without greater hurt than good they might have better And must we therefore conclude that it is unlawful for you to Preach Suppose it were â—ut when we had the Kings Licence Or if in the times of Usurpation and thought to leave the Parish Churches tended Culpably to Division It followeth not that it was unlawful for a Bishop to preach in private though when you under the Usurpers kept the Parish Church he had preacht to some of your Flock But here you shew what your Labour tendeth to viz. To prove it Unlawful for us to Preach that you may perswade Us to give over If God will I shall elsewhere give you an Account of the Reasons of our Preaching and Answer what You and Others say against it And therefore shall say but little of it here But I am heartily sorry that you are come to such a Desire That you had rather so many Hundred such Ministers were Silenced than suffered to Preach without your Covenants and Ceremonies That you no more regard the Needs of the People that abound in Ignorance Carelesness and Vice nor observe no more the Power of Sin nor the great Want of Help to such Parishes as your own and too many in the Land that have need on other Accounts O! How dreadful and unsearchable are the Judgments of God That when so many Hundreds were Forbidden to Preach the Gospel the Plague must first give them some Degree of Liberty and the Flames continue it the next Year and the Kings Clemency after and Horrid Popish Treason next divert their Prosecutors while the Laws and Bishops all the while forbad them Even when the Parish-Preachers fled from the Plague and it was dying Men that the Nonconformists Preach't to And when the Churches were Burnt down and the People had no Priest or Place to go to for their own way of Worship yet neither Laws nor Bishops consented to our Preaching And such Men as Dr. Stillingfleet also come in to engage their Wit Reputation Industry and Conscience in the Silencing Design O! What Cause have we all to VVatch and Pray That We enter not into Temptation and to dread the Spiritual Judgments of God Remember Lot ' s Wife was a needful Warning A Solomon that is Numbred with the Wisest Men may be seâ— up as a Frightful Monument to bid us Take heed lest we Revolt And I take it for a greater Injury to us to perswade us to Silence our selves than to perswade the Magistrate only to Silence Banish or Imprison us For so to Suffer from another is not our Sin But Sacrilegiously to break our Ministerial Vow and forsake the Calling which we were Solemnly Voweâ— to and this while the Necessity of Souls cry for Help is a Sin which few Men are so bad as to perswade us to with open Face without some pious fraudulent Pretence § 38. Serm. p. 20. I do not confound bare Suspending Communion in some particular Rites which Persons do modestly Scruple and using it in what they judge to be Lawful with either total or ordinary Forbearance of Communion in what they judge to be Lawful and proceeding to the Forming of Separate Congregations i. e. under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the Established Religion alloweth And this is the present Case of Separation which I intend to consider and to make the Sinfulness and the Mischievousness appear Answ I am sure I am one that you expresly Charge as of this Number and I can best speak for my self and those of my Acquaintance 1. Is it true that I totally or ordinarily forbear 2. What mean you by Forming a Congregation If their Presence be my Forming them it is but because I speak to them For I neither Perswade nor Drive them to be there But if you mean Forming them into a Distinct Church and becoming their Pastor I was never Related as a Pastor to any Church but Kiderminster nor have these Twenty Years been a Pastor to any but borrowed other Mens Pulpits to Preach a Lecture â—o such as say they need it 3. Your word Separate I have Examined before You Separate from My Auditory and more than Separate and I Separate not from Yours Who then is the Separatist 4. All the Parishes about you and the Bishop of Ely in your Parish that judge it Lawful to Hear you yet are Absent from you and so are some Nonconformists that think they must Preach themselves and cannot be in Two Places at once Is that Separating 5. The French and Dutch Churches do all that which you here describe as Sinful and Mischievous only they have more Leave than we 6. Is all the Matter that We are Teachers which the Law alloweth not So were the Orthodox under the Nestorian Eutychian Monothelite c. Princes And so I have proved That the Christian Religion hath been much propagated in the VVorld 7. VVhat are the Rules which we go by which the Established Religion alloweth not Doth it not allow the Sacred Scriptures Or Have you proved That I go by any other Rule If the Act of Vniformity or the Canons be your Religion Do not they allow God's Word Or if they be your Rules omitting that Is not Vsing another Yet those that do joyn in Churches under Chosen Pastors when I do not I shall not Condemn till I hear their Reasons They may have more Cause than I have § 39. Serm. p. 21. They Vnanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of our Church Answ 1. And yet are you one that would have them all Silenced 2. But this is not true You name
Four or Five and then say Vnanimously and this because they offer to Subscribe the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles And yet I suppose you know that they more Unanimously dissent from the Doctrinal Article in the Liturgy of Baptized Infants certain undoubted Salvation without Exception and some of them to the Doctrinal Damnation of all Condemned in Athanasius Creed And some of your selves as well as Mr. Humphrey could wish the Article against Free-will and that which Damneth all the Heathens and some others had been otherwise than they are § 40. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these that Communion is required Say you so 1. The Diocesans are little beholden to you if this be all Do you require no Communion with them 2. I think I shall shew you anon that you take your Parishes for no true Churches your self At least your chief Brethren do not who make them but Parts of a Church the Diocesan being the lowest proper Church 3. Are you sure that the Independents take your Parishes for true Churches I cannot tell But I know John Goodwin and Mr. Brown have Writ to the Contrary 4. And for my self how oft have I told you that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors but that is because I judge of their office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which depriveth them of an essential part of the Office of a Pastor of a true Church But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor Such Congregations I can joyn with as Chappels or Oratories But they are not Churches of the political organized from which we speak of as wanting an essential part § 41. Next you tell men what I said in print of our Conclusion that communion with you was lawful Ans This is true and when said we otherwise Dr. Manton Dr. Bates Dr. Jacomb Mr. Poole and others were there I told you before how far lawful § 42. Serm. p. 22. Who could have Imagined but they should have all joyned with us in what themselves judged to be lawful and in many Cases a duty But instead of this we have rather since that time found them more inclinable to courses of separation c. Ans If this be not true I take it not for sinless Since that time 1. Mr. Pool Mr. Humphery my self and others that took our selves to be no Paâ—â—ors to any particular Church have usually joyned in your assemblies and I usually keep to my Parish-Church 2. Since that time in a Treaty set on foot by the Lord-keeper Bridgman we agreed in terminis with Bishop Wilkins and Dr. Burton and Judge Hale drew up our Agreement into the form of an Act. 3. Since that time at your own motion we treated with honest Dr. Tillotson and you and the same men and more consented to the form and words of an agreeing Act and you both seemed to consent 4. Where you read my words you might have read the Reason why no more Communicated with you And it is not like a lover of Truth to dissemble them 1. I told you that even at the present new heats arising against Dissenters we thought it our duty till they were over to forbear a lawful thing which was like to occasion the sufferings of such as in that were not satisfied as we were Marriage is lawful But if it be not necessary one may forbear it if it would ruine another though the Bishop command it him 2. I told you that the Oxford Act of confinement came out when we were intending to come to your Churches and then had we been seen there in the City or Corporations we had been sent to Jayle but many in the Countries came to your Churches This is your Cathedrall Justice The Law is come to Church in London c. and you shall go to Jayle six Months And if we do not such as you tell the World that we are Separatists 3. I told you men cannot preach to others and hear you both at once Must we repeat these things as oft as you accuse us § 43. In the charge are joyned Dr. Owen and my self my error is p. 24. Serm. that to devise new Species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without Gods authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Ans A man would think that this doctrine should justifie it self and confute the Accuser 1. Will you own your Churches de Specie to be new and yet appeal to antiquity 2. Will you own them to be devised without Gods authority and yet to be preferred to those that he instituted 3. Will you own that yet they may in his name be imposed on the World 4. And will you own that for these dissenters may be called Schismaticks 5. And is not this a worse usurpation than to make new Ceremonies If you will plead for so much presumption profanation of Gods Name usurpation uncharitableness and Schism I will leave you to fight against the Light and not labour in vain in a needless confutation 2. But Sir you should have told your Reader the full truth 1. That I never denied but largely asserted the Magistrates power of the Sword over all persons and causes Ecclesiastical much less Christian Kingdoms or Cities de re 2. And that I maintained that Magistrates make officers to judge of the Circa sacra or undetermined accidents of Religion 3. And if you will equivocally call these Churches I quarrel not de nomine 4. Nor yet at the thing or name of the Association of many Churches for Concord 5. But I say in the Page cited by you that as humane forms should not be pretended falsly to be Divine so neither have they authority against those that are Divine to change them and destroy their priviledges Unless you will fight for man against God you must reverse this Accusation § 44. As to your case of the extent of the first Churches I have so much to say of it elsewhere if God will that I shall not here stay on so short a touch Only you put me to repeat If God make families and men make Cities do but confess the different efficients and usurp not a power to destroy the power instituted by God and we shall not much differ § 45. You greatly strengthen my Cause by the testimony of so well Read a man Serm. p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in
left men as much power to make new Species of Churches as to diversifie the Forms of Common-wealth 8. And as to our disturbing your peace if you had built your frame on Christs foundation and laid your peace on the unity of the Spirit and the seven particulars named Eph. 4. 45. 6. and had not built it on uncharitableness on imperious usurpation nor that love of the world which Paul Servita saith brought in the Church corruptions you would not have been so tender nor your peace like an aspen leaf in the wind as that your Brethren who you say agree in Doctrine and the substance of worship with you cannot quietly joyn near you in the worship of God without your imposed words and ceremonies but they become disturbers of your peace It s a sickly peace that is so easily disturbed by so small dissent As Rome thinketh that all wrong her that do not obey her and pleadeth for Empire under the name of Communion so do some others and will enter a suite against them as Schismatiks that will not let them ride and lash them without complaint If you have the humility and Charity of a Christian without envy c. What harm doth it do you that I and such others worship God in another room without your book while your Church is as full as it can well hold Do you not differ much more among your selves as I before shewed And the Papists yet more among themselves and yet are in one Church and tollerated But so their Power and Wills may be obeyed some men can bear with much more against God Who heareth such out cries against ten thousand or twenty thousand in a Parish that come not to any Church at all as against a few Christians that pray and preach without your book what Informers what indictments what prosecutions what invectives are equally against all these aforesaid § 51. Serm. p 31. It is very uncertain whether the Primitive form were such as they fancy c but it s certainly our duty to preserve peace and unity amongst Christians Ans 1. Then it is certainly a sin to make racks to tear them and make concord impossible and say none shall have Communion with us that will not say and Swear what we bid them and that think any thing sin which we impose and to shut men out by Cannonical Excommunication and then call them Schismaticks in Presse and Pulpit for not coming in 2. If it be uncertain whether that which we desire be the Primitive form it is uncertain then whether you oppose not and fight not against the Primitive form 3. What you say is uncertain I shall God willing prove certain elsewhere and have done All is not uncertain to others which is so to you 4. Mark this you that are for the Divine right of Episcopacy as the Primitive forme instituted by Christ As he taketh it for uncertain as beyond Congregational formes so were it so if the Church should cast it out he seemeth to hold your endeavours to reduce it to be a sinful breaking of the Churches peace You are disturbers if in Holland Geneva Helvetia you would reduce them to that which you suppose to be the Primitive form It may be it was but from the circumstances of the times And so the head of the Church hath made no particular Church Species but left all to the better wit of men who knowes to whom § 52 Serm. It is impossible so to do if men break all orders in pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform Ans Anglice It is impossible to preserve Peace and unity among Christians if men will not suppose that Christ never instituted his own Church formes or will not forsake his Institutions but fancy that they must be conformable thereto and will not preferre the wills and commands of Bishops to whom they never consented and take it to be a breaking of all orders in pieces not to do all that they enjoyn us though we take it to be heynous sin and will not give over Gods worship and our Ministry when they forbid us Dan. 6. We shall find no fault against this Daniel except it be concerning the Law of his God but if he pray openly when forbidden away with him to the Lyons for the Laws of the Medes and Persians are more inflexible than Gods § 53. As to what you say of preferring Morals and the ends it is more truly than prudently mentioned as to your cause For the very naming of it will make the Readers think whether your subscription and declaration and oaths and imposed practices which the Nonconformists judge unlawful be greater matters than their preaching the Gospel avoiding great sins the concord and strength of the Protestant Churches and the avoding temptations to wrath and persecution and divisions which will be bitter in the latter end Go learn what this meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice or needless Ceremony § 54. Serm. p. 32 Men may please themselves in talking of preserving peace and Love under separate Communions But our own sad experience shews the contrary For as nothing tends more to unite mens hearrs than joyning together in the same Prayer and Sacraments so nothing doth more alienate mens affections than withdrawing from each other into separate Congregations Ans 1. But do all separate from you that are in other Parish Churche◠than yours if not do all separate that differ as Cathedrals from Parish Churches or as conforming Preachers do from one another If not do they separate that omit a form or ceremony of yours 2. I am sorry if you have experience of the alienating of your affections from your neighbours that quietly worship God by you but it s like you know what you say For my part many of them have said and written more against me them against you and I thank God I love them heartily yea and that your own party from whom I have suffered far more It is mens diseases that make them impatient of a cross opinion or word or censure and then they cry out of mens unpeaceableness As Seneca saith They that are sore complainif they but think their sore is touched 3. Let the Magistrates keep Peace and punish all that abuse their brethren 4. But we easily grant to you that when men do not only differ but fly from each others Communion as unlawful it hath a great tendency to the alienations and evils which you mention Had we not thought so we had never stoopt and pleaded and begg'd of the Bishops to prevent or heal it as we did 1660 and 1661. And wo to the impenitent that are the cause of all and to this day will not be perswaded by all the sad experience that they complain of Sir instead of all your accusations and reasonings it would have better dispatched all the business would you but consider who it is that must cure the distance which you complain of I have fully proved
done more than yet is done And if you think you can or do prove it must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying § 56. But the other half of the definition of a separatist is they administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth Ans 1. Why will you so reproach your Church we do it by no other rule but the Scripture and doth not the Church require that the Scripture be a Rule You know Polydore Virgil and other Papists ordinarily make this signal difference of Protestants and Papists that the Protestants make the Scripture the only Rule of their Religion On which supposition Francis Peron formed his act of disputing against them And are not the Church of England Protestants If you add another rule it followeth not that we have another than you have though you have another besides what we have 2. You say we deny the fact which is evident to all persons and you speak of me Is this true What Sacraments do you mean I never ordained any I never confirmed any I have married very few if those be Sacraments I have baptised no one these twenty years I gave the Lords supper to none for about eighteen years and rarely since as I told you But others do Ans And if they have no better reason to justifie the forsaking of their Ministry than you give well may they go on to do it 3. Do you mean here by Rulers the same as before by Laws or what mean you I suppose it 's the Canon and Liturgy that you mean And if by the Church you mean any thing but the King and Parliament you are unintelligible For the Church hath but two visible essential parts the Regent and the Subject parts And of the Regent only the supream is essential the rest being also subjects and but Integrals And it is a Requiring Church which you mention And so it seemeth that it is but a lay Church And nothing but a Christian Kingdom 4. I have told you that the French and Dutch Churches here administer the Sacraments by another rule than your Liturgy and yet are no Schismaticks 5. And your rule hath many parts It requireth Preaching praying reading the Psalms and two Chapters and delivering baptism and the Lords Supper in Christs words and repeating the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue And all that I do when I officiate for any man for I have no Church and others do it with whom I converse But if it be omitting any thing else in your rule that maketh a separation what is it I oft hear Conformists omit divers prayers I have seen Dr. Horton give the Lords Supper I think to the greater part that sate I doubt most Parishes separate if every omission make a separatist 6. But thus far you satisfie me that you judge all for separatists that preach without all your Assent consent subscriptions that the Covenant bindeth no man living no not the Parliament men that took it to endeavour any alteration of Church Government that it is not lawful to resist any commissioned by the King without exception and much more such That all are â—â—â—â—ratists that administer not Sacraments according to your rule which pronounceth baptized Infants saved so dying without excepting Atheists Infidels or any and this as undoubted and certain by Gods word which requireth the Minister to refuse Baptism and Christendom where the dedicating Image of the Cross is not submitted to when the Parent or adult judge it an unlawful Sacrament And where Baptism must be denyed to all that will not make Godfathers and Godmothers the Sole Covenanting undertakers for their Children without speaking a Covenanting word themselves And when your rule requireth all Ministers to deny Sacramental Communion to all that scruple kneeling in the reception and yet excommunicateth them and ruineth them for not Communicating when they are rejected And also ipso facto Excommunicate To omit much more such this is your rule which he that swerveth from it is a separist 7. But I had thought that we had not been like those late cavilling Papists that will not distinguish fundamentals from any little points lest it lose them a paultry advantage of abusing men Doth not every good Law and Rule distinguish between Essentials Integrals and Accidents and make more Accidents than are Integrals and Integrals than are Essentials And doth your rule do otherwise If not tell us what parts of your rule are necessary to one and what to the other or you say nothing to resolve the case Is every line and Ceremony Essential to the Church and to each member If not how cometh our omitting a form of Ceremony to cut us off as a separated Church any more than every breach of Law cuts off a man from the Common-wealth Yea if your Church be but a Christian Kingdom do not you cut off all from that Kingdom too that refuse your Forms or Ceremonies or Subscriptions 8. But Sir to be short with you I will yet believe that Christ is the Institutor of the Church and that he hath himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the bond of their unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath given Laws to regulate all mens Laws that determine of needful undetermined accidents And that no man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God yea those that are necessary to Church unity and Communion And that the grand Schismaticks of the world are the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing terms and conditions of unity and Communion § 57. But you tell me that we do the same things in the same manner as the separatists Ergo we are disingenuous for denying your accusation Ans 1. Judge of the fact by what is said 2. We do not say 1. That you are no true Ministers or Churches 2. Nor that it is unlawful to communicate with you Ergo it is not true that we do the same things 3. But it is the External action the whole same that maketh a separatist A Parson in the Ale-house lost his Common prayer book When he came to Church he told them his mishap and only read what was in the Bible Query whether his Flock and he were separatists An old Parson that I was bread under could scarce see but could say most of the Prayers without book He said what he could remember and got a day Labourer one year and a Taylor another to read the Chapters Query Whether we were all separatists § 58. But you undertake to tell the Reason why I am unwilling to confess a separation because we have formerly severely condemned it in others and yet do the same things for which we charged others as guilty of a sinful separation Ans If this be not true it is not well shew
their endeavours for it were the same with th◠Church of Englands none that know the case will be of your mind 3 If you are intelligible we must suppose that you cite them to defend this as the conclusion which you own The word Tyranny is too harsh to be used without need But I suppose you include that the said Endeavours for Vniformity have no culpable severity in them That is that the Acts for Vniformity the Canons the Executing of them in Declarations Subscriptions Oaths Practices Punishments Corporal and Spiritual are no Sin but Lawful In your Epistle you say They are ill men that say This is stirring up to persecution All that I will say is that if you own these Endeavours for Vniformity I do not and the judge is at the door § 68. Serm. p. 44. If they form their judgments rather by prejudice and passion and interest than from the Laws of God or just Rules of Conscience c. Ans 1. This is true and good If we make not Gods Laws the Rule of Conscience no wonder if we err God preserve us from all corrupting prejudice passion interest and Canons 2. But when you compare our temptation from interest with yours I hope you will not say as Dr. Asheton that as going to the Bar of God he undertakes to make good that it 's through Pride and Covetousness that we conform not that is that we choose the contempt of high and low and to live on Alms and multitudes in pinching poverty § 69. Serm. p. 46. We find Vniformity and Order condemned as Tyrannical till men come into power themselves and then the very same things and arguments are used and thought very good and substantial which before were weak and sophistical Ans A true and sad confession when I read your Irenicon and this Sermon I the more believe you Therefore it hath been my happiness that I was never in Power no nor ever on the uppermost side unless as I am for the King I remember Dr. Rieves told us in the Pulpit that the reason why we were against Diocesan Bishops was because we could not be Bishops our selves And many others have said the like § 70. Serm. Those that now plead for Toleration did once think it the Mother of Confusion the nurse of Atheism c. Ans 1. Sure though you often cite Dr. Owen you mean not the Independents 2. If they spake either for or against Toleration as you do without distinction and were for all or against all and distinguished not the tolerable from the intolerable it 's no great heed to be taken what they say If there were but one false word imposed on you which you could not assent to and on 2000 such as you should you be no more tolerated than a Mahometan § 71. As to your advice to us p. 47. 48. 1. Did you think that because we must bear with much that is amiss in the Church that therefore we must either consent to it or practise it and Covenant against all endeavours of amending it or prefer it before better The man you talk of out of Mr. Ball was near Bremicham and was Melancholy to a kind of madness To your second I answer It followeth not that because we must not judge too hardly of Impositions therefore we must say swear and do all that is now imposed on us Or that he that dares not do it is unpeaceable I would we knew in what cases only you would deny Obedience and Conformity your self Doubtful passages and undoubted evils somewhat differ A fault-finding disposition and the Roman art that Boccaline mentions to swallow a Pimpion have a mean between them Papists Socinians or any that are uppermost may call for Conformity under the names of Unity and Peace To the Third separation was not the same thing in the mouth of the old Non-conformists as in yours They took it first for unchurching the Parish Churches 2. Or holding it a sin to communicate with them if they might be excused as to kneeling Crossing c. You take it for preaching when forbidden I have named to you the old Non-conformists that preached when they could And half of them I think got into small priviledged places exempt from the Bishops power and there preached most of them without the Liturgy and all without the Ceremonies And was not this against Law Sure Bishop Bancroft that describeth their attempts to set up new Churches and Discipline was not of your mind concerning the Non-conformists judgment We had but two in all Shropshire and Dr. Allestree when a boy was the Catechiz'd Auditor of one of them being his next Neighbour in a peculiar Chapel without the Liturgy c. And yet I think not that his Father and all that Assembly were separatists for hearing him Bradshaw thought we should submit to a silencing Law where our Ministry was unnecessary and so do I. Dr. Gouge was a Conformist when he wrote the Book which you cite To your Fourth Woe to them that believe our divisions indanger the Land and let in Popery and yet will cause them and no intreaty can procure them to forbear dividing us when they may and then revile them that have no way to remedy it unless wilful heinous sinning be the way § 72. That it is diseases that love not their own names in mens hearts that make the trouble more than our different judgments and Assemblings experience telleth us I was never a settled Teacher but in two places saving a Lecture at Coventry in the War viz. An Assistant at Budgnorth and a Pastor at Kidderminster And in both places there is an honest Conformable and a Non-Conformable Minister And the People go to the publick Assembly and many hear the Non-conformist privately between the publick Meetings And both parties as I hear live in very much love and peace and why might it not be so in other places if there were the like Ministers and People without all this envyous clamour and bugbear words of Anti-christian on one side or Separatists and Schismaticks on the other § 73. As to your next advices p. 53. 54. First Qui monet ut facias c. We speak so much against rash ignorant Zeal that you commend us against your purpose 2. We thank you for the admonition not to be always complaining of hardships and persecutions Doubtless our mercies are so great as forbid us to be over querulous nay leave us unexcusable if we are not very thankful For my own part my sufferings have been very small from man in comparison of what I endure in Soul and Body from my self They are few days in which I am not a heavier burden to my self than all my Enemies are But First I may not be senceless of the case of many better men who have great families and no bread but what they have by Alms in poor Countreys where the people are fitter to receive than to give And if they remove to bigger Towns
do consent But 1. Did our 18 or 19 years Silencing them do that 2. Do not you do it that make men believe that we are Intolerable and to be Silenced and that Separate from our Congregations as if it were a sin to join with us 3. We desire only a true stating of the Case The honest dealing which you demand I and many others constantly perform and it 's ill to intimate that we do not But you add § 77. It 's hard to understand if occasional Communion be lawful that constant Communion should not be a Duty Ans Some Truths are hard to men of great Wit It 's lawful to have communion in our Assemblies as I am ready to prove and yet you think not any much less constant Communion to be a Duty It 's lawful to have Communion with the French Dutch or Greek Church must constant Communion be therefore a Duty It 's lawful to have Communion with an ignorant Reader or a drunken Priest at least in your Judgment Is it therefore a duty to seek no better § 78. Serm. All understanding men will conclude that they pâ—efer some little interests of their own before the Honour of Christ and the Peace of the Church Ans 1. The word Little came well in as to your sense Truly Poverty and Ruin are little interests I cannot imagine what you mean 〈◊〉 it be Reputation But is not your Reputation with the Highest Persons and the multitude a more tempting Interest than our Reputation with such as you much Contemn 2. But do you understanding men know our hearts better than we And are you sure that none are understanding that be not as partially Censorious as you If we prefer our Little interest why do we not Conform If you take us all for Mad men dispute not with us if not can we be ignorant that Carnal Interest is on your side and are none of us Capable of it 3. I should have taken it as too sharp an intimation to say that Your Greater Interest swayeth you No man that is a Christian taketh this vain vexatious World for his great Interest And to make the Little Interest of Prosecuted Beggared Ruined Non-conformists to be that which beareth down both all the interest of Wealth Ease and Worldly honours and the interest of the Churches Peace and the interest of their own Salvation and all this by no other proof than a Supposition that your Sagacity knoweth their hearts and that all understanding men are of your mind the naughtiness of this is so great that it will not suffer you to see it Sir as wise as you are I know my own heart better than you do and so do my Brethren know theirs If you would swear the contrary I will not believe you And I tell you it is no Little Interest that moveth me it is greater than a Deanery or a Bishoprick I were worse than mad if 1. I consumed my small estate 2. And my Health 3. And denied my Ease 4. And all worldly Wealth and Pleasure 5. And exposed my self to be called a Schismatick and a Rogue by the Conformists 6. And lay my self under the ruining dangers of the Law And 7. to be written against as doing all this by sin 8. And all this under the languishings and pains of sickness expecting when I am called to my account I say I were worse than mad if I chose all this for that which you call Little interest 9. And if Reputation with my poor despised party be that Little interest you confute your self before where you say how much I have undergone of their impatient Censures Have I flattered them Have I not said more against their faults than you have done though not against their Duty 10. Some of my heart-judges say it is a semel 〈◊〉 to avoid the imputation of mutability But their Companions confute them who charge me with my retractations and who see by my writings that I left room for second thoughts and have not silenced them to escape the Censure of any whomsoever I have left my Reputation to God and never was so thin Skin'd as to be unable to bear a Cholerick breath I livâ— not upon Air or the thoughts of men who will shortly with me be silent in the dâ—st They that know how many Books perhaps scores have been written against me by Sectaries of many sorts and some by good and sober men Presbyterians Independents and Prelatical and how little they have broke my peace will not think applause is my Little interest Had I bâ—en as you I woâ—ld have left cut this Charge of Little interest lest it should teâ—pt men to compare your Case and ours § 79. Your 5th Advice is just I hate Charging you or any with unjust suspicions of inclinations to Popery I know some sew men whom I have reason to say Defend Grotius as one of their Religion who thought that the Protestants can never unite among themselves till they unite with Rome as the Mistress Church and that the Councils even that of Trent are sound in the Faith and that securing the rights of Kings and Bishops and disowning the Schoolmens abuses and the Clergies evil lives and reducing the Pope to rule us not Arbitrarily but by the Canons are enough to satisfie and reconcile us But to charge this on all or most is unjust We know what Bishop Barlow Bishop Crosts and divers others have done to signifie their Faithfulness to the Protestant Cause And if Câ—ntzen's way prevail not to drill men they know nâ—t whither by degrees I hope of the 9000 or 10000 Clergie men in England one thousand will not turn to Popery But I must say that when some Prelates made it their great business to Silence Shame and Ruin us and drive us far enough from Persons of Power undertaking to preserve the Protestant Religion better without us than with us and after all cry out themselves that we are in danger of Popery by their own Pupils and Disciples whose instruction they undertook men will have leave to think of this awake and to judge of Causes by Effects § 80. Your Counsel is good Not to run the hazard of all for a show of greater Liberty to our selves Should I tell you three stories of our hazarding our own Liberties because we would not do what you disswade us from one in 1660 and another 1662 and another about 1667 it would be a pair of Spectacles to some 2. But will not all that have eyes see who doth more for Toleration of Popery they that say Popery and you shall stand and fall together except you will say subscribe and do all that is prescribed you or they that say We cannot do that which we take to be hainous sin Do you think the Papists had not rather with you that we were Silenced than that we Preach who have been their greatest Adversaries If you will rather let in Toleration of Popery than you will Tolerate Protestants that fear the guilt of Lying Perjury and many other Evils should they do that which you Confess indifferent let God be judge between you and us FINIS §. 1. §. 2. §. 3. §. 4. §. 6. §. 7. §. 8. §. 9. §. 10. §. 11. §. 12. §. 13. §. 14. §. 25. §. 16. §. 17. §. 18.